Can you be the better than someone if they are better than you at 3/4 slams?

[Dire_Wolf]

I must admit I'm a bit of Sampras fanboy so when it comes to Nadal vs Sampras I'm a little sceptical about having Sampras behind Nadal because he leads Nadal at 3 slams(AO,W and USO) while trailing at the Chatrier (in case you are wondering I have Federer ahead of Nadal too primarily because of that very reason).

In hypotheticals:

Player A-Player B

AO : 2-5
FO : 10-1
W : 3-7
USO :1-3

In this case both player A and player B have 16 Grand Slams but one is clearly better at 3/4. That being the case, does A really have a solid case for being overall the better player?

 

[Nadal>>>>>Federer]

Yeah one can be better, but the one with more slams is greater

 

[Sysyphus]

I must admit I'm a bit of Sampras fanboy so when it comes to Nadal vs Sampras I'm a little sceptical about having Sampras behind Nadal because he leads Nadal at 3 slams(AO,W and USO) while trailing at the Chatrier (in case you are wondering I have Federer ahead of Nadal too primarily because of that very reason).

In hypotheticals:

Player A-Player B

AO : 2-5
FO : 10-1
W : 3-7
USO :1-3

In this case both player A and player B have 16 Grand Slams but one is clearly better at 3/4. That being the case, does A really have a solid case for being overall the better player?

In my opinion this is a great point, and I agree that this sort of versatility should be valued and is more impressive than being more of a "specialist". This sort of spread between slams is also a proof that one hasn't "taken advantage" of a weaker field at one of the slams/surfaces (I guess this is most pertinent on grass and clay, seeing that field is deepest on hard courts).
However, I fully accept that many will feel differently, and place special value on enormous achievements at one specific slam, like Nadal's RG (which I agree is astonishing).

Lastly, I also agree that I don't see the reason for putting Nadal over Sampras by default. Mostly because it's meaningless eras, and also because Sampras leads at 3/4 slams, time at #1, and I think Wimbledon is extra special.

 

[RF-18]

Well I would definetly choose player Bs achievements.

IMHO versatility and completeness is an important factor.

In this case those numbers clearly show that player B is a more complete player and can both master and adapt to different surfaces better.

So no (according to me), a player who is much dependent on one surface and is limited to several others can't be a better player than the one that can master several other surfaces but one.

 

[kandamrgam]

I must admit I'm a bit of Sampras fanboy so when it comes to Nadal vs Sampras I'm a little sceptical about having Sampras behind Nadal because he leads Nadal at 3 slams(AO,W and USO) while trailing at the Chatrier (in case you are wondering I have Federer ahead of Nadal too primarily because of that very reason).

In hypotheticals:

Player A-Player B

AO : 2-5
FO : 10-1
W : 3-7
USO :1-3

In this case both player A and player B have 16 Grand Slams but one is clearly better at 3/4. That being the case, does A really have a solid case for being overall the better player?

I would say player B here, but if player A has 2 UO, then player A for me.

 

[forehand fan]

I must admit I'm a bit of Sampras fanboy so when it comes to Nadal vs Sampras I'm a little sceptical about having Sampras behind Nadal because he leads Nadal at 3 slams(AO,W and USO) while trailing at the Chatrier (in case you are wondering I have Federer ahead of Nadal too primarily because of that very reason).

In hypotheticals:

Player A-Player B

AO : 2-5
FO : 10-1
W : 3-7
USO :1-3

In this case both player A and player B have 16 Grand Slams but one is clearly better at 3/4. That being the case, does A really have a solid case for being overall the better player?

you realize what double counting is right? if a player is more versatile than another then he has already been rewarded for that by the tour.. . if he can't use his superiority on more surfaces over the specialist to win more than him,, it's his fault

 

[Bryan Swartz]

Double counting is a good point. Another factor here is the overvaluing of winning titles to the exclusion of all else. Players like Lendl(8 straight USO finals) get undervalued under such an approach.

 

[The_Order]

Nadal has a career slam, Sampras does not.

Since they both have 14 majors, the career slam is what gives Nadal the edge imo.

 

[forehand fan]

Nadal has a career slam, Sampras does not.

Since they both have 14 majors, the career slam is what gives Nadal the edge imo.

don't agree on that.. in my view sampas's 5 wtf titles still give him the edge over nadal.

 

[Russeljones]

I would say player B here, but if player A has 2 UO, then player A for me.

Because you believe in the imaginary achievement called Double Career Slam, right? Except it would not change the basis of the comparison. Player B would be more accomplished (considerably so) at 3 of the 4 events. Why choose A, unless one is governed by the value system that sacrifices logic on the altar of obsession?

 

[forehand fan]

Because you believe in the imaginary achievement called Double Career Slam, right? Except it would not change the basis of the comparison. Player B would be more accomplished (considerably so) at 3 of the 4 events. Why choose A, unless one is governed by the value system that sacrifices logic on the altar of obsession?

what's your view about double counting?

 

[kandamrgam]

don't agree on that.. in my view sampas's 5 wtf titles still give him the edge over nadal.

OK Nadal misses WTF. Sampras misses FO. Which is a bigger miss?

It doesn't matter how many WTF Sampras have, 1 or 5 or 10. Slams are first and foremost the most important thing. Everything comes below it. You have to inspect the accomplishments a rung lower only if they are tied in Slam category. They are not. One reason I rate Agassi higher.

 

[Russeljones]

OK Nadal misses WTF. Sampras misses FO. Which is a bigger miss?

It doesn't matter how many WTF Sampras have, 1 or 5 or 10. Slams are first and foremost the most important thing. Everything comes below it. You have to inspect the accomplishments a rung lower only if they are tied in Slam category. They are not. One reason I rate Agassi higher.

You rate Agassi higher than Sampras!?!

 

[heninfan99]

You use the word "better".
1bet·ter
adjective \ˈbe-tər\
: higher in quality
: more skillful

I think of Sampras as having a higher quality of serve & foot speed. I feel his ground strokes are underestimated. He's a bit more skillfull at net.

Their backhands are about equal. Sampras had a better slice.

Nadal has a higher quality forehand, better return of serve and superior cardio.

 

[NatF]

Depends on the difference at the 3/4 slams in general I would think. If they're close at 3 of the slams but one player has a big lead at the 4th I'd go with that guy.

 

[forehand fan]

OK Nadal misses WTF. Sampras misses FO. Which is a bigger miss?

It doesn't matter how many WTF Sampras have, 1 or 5 or 10. Slams are first and foremost the most important thing. Everything comes below it. You have to inspect the accomplishments a rung lower only if they are tied in Slam category. They are not. One reason I rate Agassi higher.

i agree that slams are the most important of all. but nadal and sampras are equal in slam counts.and it's not like nadal won the cygs. of course nadal has his own pluspoints over sampras like dominating his biggest rivals in the slams like never seen before. but still sampras's 5 wtfs and 6 ye no 1 gives him the edge in my view.

 

[Russeljones]

i agree that slams are the most important of all. but nadal and sampras are equal in slam counts.and it's not like nadal won the cygs. of course nadal has his own pluspoints over sampras like dominating his biggest rivals in the slams like never seen before. but still sampras's 5 wtfs and 6 ye no 1 gives him the edge in my view.

Please look at the comparisons tracking Nadal, Djokovic and Federer to see where Nadal failed to meet the latter. The fact that he lost early or skipped Slams really enhances the view (through the simplest metric of all - h2h) that he dominated in Slams. The difference, especially with Federer, is much slimmer if we take into account the number of times Nadal avoided facing him. Especially in the years and on the surfaces that favoured peak Federer.

 

[NatF]

You use the word "better".
1bet·ter
adjective \ˈbe-tər\
: higher in quality
: more skillful

I think of Sampras as having a higher quality of serve & foot speed. I feel his ground strokes are underestimated. He's a bit more skillfull at net.

Their backhands are about equal. Sampras had a better slice.

Nadal has a higher quality forehand, better return of serve and superior cardio.

I'd add some comments and amend this slightly.

Serve: Sampras (though Nadal's lefty serve out wide to the backhand will be very effective)
Foot speed/defence: Nadal by a clear margin.
Backhand: Nadal overall, slice goes to Sampras but Nadal eats up slices on most courts.

 

[RF-18]

OK Nadal misses WTF. Sampras misses FO. Which is a bigger miss?

It doesn't matter how many WTF Sampras have, 1 or 5 or 10. Slams are first and foremost the most important thing. Everything comes below it. You have to inspect the accomplishments a rung lower only if they are tied in Slam category. They are not. One reason I rate Agassi higher.

 

[forehand fan]

Please look at the comparisons tracking Nadal, Djokovic and Federer to see where Nadal failed to meet the latter. The fact that he lost early or skipped Slams really enhances the view (through the simplest metric of all - h2h) that he dominated in Slams. The difference, especially with Federer, is much slimmer if we take into account the number of times Nadal avoided facing him. Especially in the years and on the surfaces that favoured peak Federer.

your point is true if we talk about consistency. but i was not really talking about consistence there. in my view if you reach the slam semis or finals then you are close to your best form. you may say those matches give us a view about how they would fare against each other if they were playing close to their best.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

If Nadal and Sampras are broadly equal and yet Federer is by some margin better than Sampras, how can Nadal ever be seen to be better than Federer?

Answer he can't, have we finally solved the GOAT debate?

 

[kandamrgam]

Because you believe in the imaginary achievement called Double Career Slam, right? Except it would not change the basis of the comparison. Player B would be more accomplished (considerably so) at 3 of the 4 events. Why choose A, unless one is governed by the value system that sacrifices logic on the altar of obsession?

When you put it like "Double Career Slam" it sounds imaginary. Rather I see it as "more balanced Slam resume". Which is real merit. I'm a Rafa fan. I know lot of Roger fans who believes Rafa wont be greater than him if Rafa gets to 18 by winning solely RGs though Rafa has completed the Career Slam. I believe it's true. Now their reasoning can be interpreted in 3 ways:

1. Rafa should have "more balanced" title wins across all 4 Slams. ie, the standard deviation should be minimal. Something like 3 AO, 5 RG, 3 WC, 4 UO

2. Rafa should lead in title wins in 2 or 3 of the 4 Slams. ie, the median should be higher. Something like OP presented his case where Sampras leads Nadal in 3/4 Slams.

3. Rafa should have at least X title wins in each of the 4 Slams where X being higher is better.


- 1. penalizes for someone being too good at something. It's anti-specialization. It says like you not only have to win more from every Slam but you can not also be too good at something. I find it stupid. By that logic player A with 1-1-1-1 record is better than 1-1-1-7. Wrong according to me.

- 2. disregards whether the player has completed the Career Slam or not at all. In this case it supports Sampras being better than Nadal in Slams which I cant agree with. Rafa is simply one better than Sampras if all the Slams have equal weightage. Moot point here because I'm already talking from a point where uniformity matters.

- I dont see a weakness in .3. For this reason imo, Agassi > Sampras, accomplishment wise.

Hence my pick is 3. I also think 2. is a good indicator if Career Slam is completed. I don't know which weighs higher, would love to see discussion on it, but I'm tempted to pick 3.

 

[kandamrgam]

You rate Agassi higher than Sampras!?!

Career wise yes. Not as a better player. Balance is more important to me.

 

[kandamrgam]

You use the word "better".
1bet·ter
adjective \ˈbe-tər\
: higher in quality
: more skillful

I think of Sampras as having a higher quality of serve & foot speed. I feel his ground strokes are underestimated. He's a bit more skillfull at net.

Their backhands are about equal. Sampras had a better slice.

Nadal has a higher quality forehand, better return of serve and superior cardio.

Equal? The edge Nadal has on the topspinner trumps the other advantages of Sampras.

 

[kandamrgam]

i agree that slams are the most important of all. but nadal and sampras are equal in slam counts.and it's not like nadal won the cygs. of course nadal has his own pluspoints over sampras like dominating his biggest rivals in the slams like never seen before. but still sampras's 5 wtfs and 6 ye no 1 gives him the edge in my view.

1. CYGS means nothing to me. Let's disagree..

2. I think I was exactly replying to that point - that everything comes below GS -, but you're merely saying the same thing about WTF and YEN1. Are you telling me that you disagree with my view?

 

[kandamrgam]

If Nadal and Sampras are broadly equal and yet Federer is by some margin better than Sampras, how can Nadal ever be seen to be better than Federer?

Answer he can't, have we finally solved the GOAT debate?

Yes solved, since only 3 people are ever in GOAT debate - Sampras, Federer and Nadal. And Davydenko too, but he has not completed Career Slam, so ignorable.

 

[Dire_Wolf]

- 1. penalizes for someone being too good at something. It's anti-specialization. It says like you not only have to win more from every Slam but you can not also be too good at something. I find it stupid. By that logic player A with 1-1-1-1 record is better than 1-1-1-7. Wrong according to me.

So basically you seem to value CGS highly right? Otherwise what I've quoted here basically contradicts your logic in rating Agassi over Sampras. Just want to clarify

 

[moonballs]

Just ask yourself this question: is it harder to win eight slams in one event or 2 at each of the slams? Obviously the latter.

But in Pete vs rafa comparison pete has a big hole in the resume which is compensated by better performances in the other three. I have to say they are pretty close at the moment. A slight edge goes to Pete because he held the slams record in the open era and Nadal never did that (yet).

 

[Dire_Wolf]

Also, this whole double career GS thing is a bit of a red herring. If Nadal wins AO and never wins another slam again, he'd have 15 total with 2 slams or more at each slam(first in Open Era) and that is impressive...but Federer would still be massively ahead at all slams apart from PC.'

AO 4>>>2
W 7>>>2
USO 5>>>2

I'm not arguing that slam distribution is unimportant...far from it...it is one of the main reasons why I rate Federer higher than Nadal..but why is 2 GS at every slam better than 4+ GS at 3 slams(unmatched)?

To use another example...lets say Federer somehow wins a FO and ends with 18 slams. Nadal wins 6 RGs more to end with 20 slams (I understand both scenarios are unlikely but just an example)..

Their slam distribution would be:

4-2-7-5 for Federer
1-15-2-2 for Nadal

Would Federer in this case still be the better player just because he has 2+ at each of the slams?

 

[Dire_Wolf]

Just ask yourself this question: is it harder to win eight slams in one event or 2 at each of the slams? Obviously the latter.

But in Pete vs rafa comparison pete has a big hole in the resume which is compensated by better performances in the other three. I have to say they are pretty close at the moment. A slight edge goes to Pete because he held the slams record in the open era and Nadal never did that (yet).

I agree with this. Pete also has 2 more YE number 1s plus many more weeks at #1 and 5 WTFs. Just about overshadows the CGS for me especially considering the surfaces. Another slam and that changes though.

 

[kandamrgam]

So basically you seem to value CGS highly right? Otherwise what I've quoted here basically contradicts your logic in rating Agassi over Sampras. Just want to clarify

Yes. You quoted point 1. of mine there, which I said is not a good measure. The reason Agassi > Sampras is point 3.

 

[kandamrgam]

Also, this whole double career GS thing is a bit of a red herring. If Nadal wins AO and never wins another slam again, he'd have 15 total with 2 slams or more at each slam(first in Open Era) and that is impressive...but Federer would still be massively ahead at all slams apart from PC.'

AO 4>>>2
W 7>>>2
USO 5>>>2

I'm not arguing that slam distribution is unimportant...far from it...it is one of the main reasons why I rate Federer higher than Nadal..but why is 2 GS at every slam better than 4+ GS at 3 slams(unmatched)?

To use another example...lets say Federer somehow wins a FO and ends with 18 slams. Nadal wins 6 RGs more to end with 20 slams (I understand both scenarios are unlikely but just an example)..

Their slam distribution would be:

4-2-7-5 for Federer
1-15-2-2 for Nadal

Would Federer in this case still be the better player just because he has 2+ at each of the slams?

1. In the first case, I believe Nadal and Federer have more or less equal shot at "uniform Slam" greatness. Nadal because he has at least 2 Slams everywhere. Federer because he leads in 3/4. Both are meaningful though I tend towards picking Nadal there. But, I say Federer too has a case there because he leads in 3/4. Not because he has 4+ at 3 Slams. 2+ at all 4 Slams any day trumps that.

2. In the second case, I will pick Federer regardless of how many Slams Nadal has. Not only Federer leads 3/4 Slams, he also has 2+ wins everywhere.

 

[Aretium]

Sampras is a better tennis player, Nadal is a good winner. Nadal is lucky to live in a homogenized era, as are Fed/Djok.

 

[Russeljones]

There is no metric that would put Agassi above Sampras in terms of career accomplishments. 1 lucky FO does not a spring make.

Anyone who says a 2nd AO would negate the gulf in Slam wins across 3 of the 4 Slams is being blatantly dishonest. Had the shoe been on the other foot.. well why even go there, right?

I sympathize with Nadal the man, but I find it hard to sympathize with most of his followers. It's seems as though some of them are trying to will into existence a scenario where the history books are rewritten. An imaginary achievement like the Career Slam or Double Career Slam or the Clay Swing Slam, or whatever, is just that, imaginary. Why can't you just accept reality? Like the smear campaign against the WTF. Some people don't realize they are ****ting on tennis that way. Their idol is a tennis player and their stance demeans him. How can they be so blind?

 

[Deleted member 733170]

There is no metric that would put Agassi above Sampras in terms of career accomplishments. 1 lucky FO does not a spring make.

Anyone who says a 2nd AO would negate the gulf in Slam wins across 3 of the 4 Slams is being blatantly dishonest. Had the shoe been on the other foot.. well why even go there, right?

I sympathize with Nadal the man, but I find it hard to sympathize with most of his followers. It's seems as though some of them are trying to will into existence a scenario where the history books are rewritten. An imaginary achievement like the Career Slam or Double Career Slam or the Clay Swing Slam, or whatever, is just that, imaginary. Why can't you just accept reality? Like the smear campaign against the WTF. Some people don't realize they are ****ting on tennis that way. Their idol is a tennis player and their stance demeans him. How can they be so blind?

Now that you have outflanked the 'enemy' expect a heavy barrage of h2h artillery or at the very least a kamikaze attempt!

 

[kandamrgam]

There is no metric that would put Agassi above Sampras in terms of career accomplishments. 1 lucky FO does not a spring make.

Anyone who says a 2nd AO would negate the gulf in Slam wins across 3 of the 4 Slams is being blatantly dishonest. Had the shoe been on the other foot.. well why even go there, right?

I sympathize with Nadal the man, but I find it hard to sympathize with most of his followers. It's seems as though some of them are trying to will into existence a scenario where the history books are rewritten. An imaginary achievement like the Career Slam or Double Career Slam or the Clay Swing Slam, or whatever, is just that, imaginary. Why can't you just accept reality? Like the smear campaign against the WTF. Some people don't realize they are ****ting on tennis that way. Their idol is a tennis player and their stance demeans him. How can they be so blind?

1. Agassi's FO win had a win over Moya in it but I do think it had luck involved. But he did make to two F as well as two other SF losing to likes of Wilander and Courier. I believe he deserved one.

2. Could you quote someone in your post so that he can give a better reply? Ad hominem is you know... just plain wrong.

3. Why is Career Slam imaginary?

 

[NatF]

When you put it like "Double Career Slam" it sounds imaginary. Rather I see it as "more balanced Slam resume". Which is real merit. I'm a Rafa fan. I know lot of Roger fans who believes Rafa wont be greater than him if Rafa gets to 18 by winning solely RGs though Rafa has completed the Career Slam. I believe it's true. Now their reasoning can be interpreted in 3 ways:

1. Rafa should have "more balanced" title wins across all 4 Slams. ie, the standard deviation should be minimal. Something like 3 AO, 5 RG, 3 WC, 4 UO

2. Rafa should lead in title wins in 2 or 3 of the 4 Slams. ie, the median should be higher. Something like OP presented his case where Sampras leads Nadal in 3/4 Slams.

3. Rafa should have at least X title wins in each of the 4 Slams where X being higher is better.


- 1. penalizes for someone being too good at something. It's anti-specialization. It says like you not only have to win more from every Slam but you can not also be too good at something. I find it stupid. By that logic player A with 1-1-1-1 record is better than 1-1-1-7. Wrong according to me.

- 2. disregards whether the player has completed the Career Slam or not at all. In this case it supports Sampras being better than Nadal in Slams which I cant agree with. Rafa is simply one better than Sampras if all the Slams have equal weightage. Moot point here because I'm already talking from a point where uniformity matters.

- I dont see a weakness in .3. For this reason imo, Agassi > Sampras, accomplishment wise.

Hence my pick is 3. I also think 2. is a good indicator if Career Slam is completed. I don't know which weighs higher, would love to see discussion on it, but I'm tempted to pick 3.

The problem with #3 is that it could give superiority to a player with a much lower slam total as it does for you. Clearly Sampras was the superior player to Agassi as other metrics such as time at #1 confirm. I think it's clear that balance is secondary to total unless the totals are close. In which case the debate becomes more interesting.

Any line of reasoning which grants Agassi superiority over Sampras in terms of greateness needs to be reevaluated.

 

[kandamrgam]

The problem with #3 is that it could give superiority to a player with a much lower slam total as it does for you. Clearly Sampras was the superior player to Agassi as other metrics such as time at #1 confirm. I think it's clear that balance is secondary to total unless the totals are close. In which case the debate becomes more interesting.

Any line of reasoning which grants Agassi superiority over Sampras in terms of greateness needs to be reevaluated.

That depends on our definition of "superiority". I'm picking a player who had a better career. CGS gives that edge to Agassi. Even if he sat with 4 Slams one each from all 4 I would pick him. That balance for me is first and foremost.

You also say their Slam title has to be close. How close? Is it a fixed differential? Or is it about percentage difference? Or is it just "I know when I see it" type? I like the objectivity in my logic.

I by no means hold Agassi as a better player.

 

[NatF]

That depends on our definition of "superiority". I'm picking a player who had a better career. CGS gives that edge to Agassi. Even if he sat with 4 Slams one each from all 4 I would pick him. That balance for me is first and foremost.

You also say their Slam title has to be close. How close? Is it a fixed differential? Or is it about percentage difference? Or is it just "I know when I see it" type? I like the objectivity in my logic.

I by no means hold Agassi as a better player.

You'd pick 4 slams over 14 as a greater career? Honestly?

Well I like to see reason in my logic and I'm not seeing any of that if the above statement rings true for you. I've never attached a number to what I consider close, obviously at the very least within a slam is close.

 

[Dire_Wolf]

I can understand someone saying Agassi was a better all surface player than Sampras (even that would be pushing it) but I really don't see how you could say he had a better or greater career than Sampras. 6 GS is a huge huge difference...it's pretty 2 shy of Agassi's career count! Add the YE 1s, weeks and WTFs and it's a bit of a no contest as to who had the better career(or greater...that's just semantics).

I am all for players who have won at all slams, on all surfaces and distribution etc but if I understand right, it is being implied that 1-1-1-1 is better than say, 2-0-3-5 which just doesn't seem right. I suppose it depends on how much importance you give to the career GS but this is the first time I am coming across someone who has Agassi ahead of Sampras in terms of a greater career.

The way I see it, only one name has definitely and certainly had a better career than Sampras to date and he is called Roger Federer. One more slam for Nadal pushes him above Sampras as well. I am not saying Borg or Laver or Nadal now can't be said to be greater than Sampras but it won't be a deadset thing.

Also what happens in the very unlikely event Federer somehow wins 2 RGs. Des that make him the unequivocal GOAT because of the ''triple CGS'' even if Nadal ends up with 5 slams more than him? Very murky waters if you ask me.

Career GS is okay but double career GS, XYZ sweep, Monday morning North American sweep, etc are just arbitrarily made up and have no real importance.

 

[BringBackSV]

Because you believe in the imaginary achievement called Double Career Slam, right? Except it would not change the basis of the comparison. Player B would be more accomplished (considerably so) at 3 of the 4 events. Why choose A, unless one is governed by the value system that sacrifices logic on the altar of obsession?

What aspect of winning each GS at least twice is imaginary? You can call it whatever you want but there is nothing imaginary or insignificant about it.

 

[The_Order]

Double career slam is imaginary? Really?

If any player manages to do that, they need to be credited with the respect that achievement holds.

Having all 4 majors twice is a better achievement than holding 4+ at 3 of them imo. It shows you have proven yourself at all 4 majors, not just at 3 with 1 fluke win.

I don't know why Fed fans get so worked up about it though, Nadal hasn't even won the AO twice.

I guess they're scared that if he does then there will be even more of a case to declare him the greater player because they know Fed has no chance of winning RG with Nadal and Novak around.

 

[NatF]

Federer's FO is a fluke yet certain posters constantly refer to him as great clay competition...

:lol:

 

[kandamrgam]

You'd pick 4 slams over 14 as a greater career? Honestly?

Well I like to see reason in my logic and I'm not seeing any of that if the above statement rings true for you. I've never attached a number to what I consider close, obviously at the very least within a slam is close.

Yup of course. Why 14. I would pick 4 over 28 I repeat that's just from having a better career imo. I would need to re-think if what's missing is AO or UO since essentially they are hard courts. But in Pete's case, yes.

Not to say a 28 Slam winner is definitely a better player.

 

[NatF]

Yup of course. Why 14. I would pick 4 over 28 I repeat that's just from having a better career imo. I would need to re-think if what's missing is AO or UO since essentially they are hard courts. But in Pete's case, yes.

Not to say a 28 Slam winner is definitely a better player.

Balance =/= Greatness

I can't see the logic in someone with 1/7 the achievements being greater because that 1/7 is evenly distributed.

 

[kandamrgam]

Federer's FO is a fluke yet certain posters constantly refer to him as great clay competition...

:lol:

That's the mighty politics involved. There are no tennis reasons there

 

[NatF]

That's the mighty politics involved. There is no tennis reasons there

Of course not. On the one hand Federer would have 4 FO's with Nadal and is very stiff competition, but on the other when it's time to talk about overall greatness the FO he won is a fluke :lol:

 

[kandamrgam]

Balance =/= Greatness

I can't see the logic in someone with 1/7 the achievements being greater because that 1/7 is evenly distributed.

1. That even distribution should come in Slams. I'm not like everything should be even. But yes in Slams, especially different surfaces.

2. Because it doesnt matter to me how much you can be a genius in one thing. I would take being a master of all.

3. I would call the lesser player "greater" from "having had greater career" by inspecting the level of playing field. Fluke wins dont account to greatness. That's subjective. But in Agassi's case I'm tempted to say he is greater than Sampras, certainly in my book.

 

[The_Order]

Of course not. On the one hand Federer would have 4 FO's with Nadal and is very stiff competition, but on the other when it's time to talk about overall greatness the FO he won is a fluke :lol:

Did he beat Nadal to win it?

He couldn't overcome the greatest challenge that RG had to offer, Nadal has only lost once there to Soderling and that was a fluke.

Did you even watch that tournament? Federer wasn't playing great, his FH that just landed in against Haas was a fluke shot. Had that gone out, so would he.

So yeah, sorry to have to spell everything out to you, but winning an RG title during the Nadal era is a fluke, especially since he didn't beat Nadal to get it.

Doesn't mean he's a weak player on clay though, in any other era, he would have held multiple RG titles. But if you don't think he was lucky that Sod took Nadal out in 09 then you're delusional.

 

[NatF]

1. That even distribution should come in Slams. I'm not like everything should be even. But yes in Slams, especially different surfaces.

2. Because it doesnt matter to me how much you can be a genius in one thing. I would take being a master of all.

3. I would call the lesser player "greater" from "having had greater career" by inspecting the level of playing field. Fluke wins dont account to greatness. That's subjective. But in Agassi's case I'm tempted to say he is greater than Sampras, certainly in my book.

1. Why only the slams? Greatness is not only related to slam wins. Surface differences can vary as we've seen in the past few years as well. Who's greater in this case, Player A has 1 W 1 AO 1 FO, Player B has 5 W 5 AO?

2. But having 1 slam at each is not master of all. It's only 'good' on all. The player with 28 slams is going to be the master on 2 surfaces.

3. This is your opinion, so we'll have to agree to disagree. I've made my position clear I feel. I completely disagree .